This is where I publish my preliminary research notes and ideas concerning warfare in the Book of Mormon. This is a spot for civilians, military historians, members of the LDS church and anybody else who enjoys studying the military aspects of the Book of Mormon and its impact on the LDS Church, society and the field of military history.

New Title!

Now Available in Paperback!

Follow by Email

About Me

I have a B.A. from Southern Virginia University and an M.A. in History from Norwich University. I have presented or published papers on Napoleonic warfare, East Asian history, Book of Mormon warfare, and the American Civil War. In 2009 I separated from the military after serving 9 years as an infantry riflemen, squad leader and intelligence analyst.
I am the author of “Forming the Formless: Sun-Tzu and the military logic of Ender Wiggins,” “Offensive Warfare in The Book of Mormon and a Defense of the Bush Doctrine,” and "The Battle Experience in the Book of Mormon." I have authored numerous articles for the Encyclopedias of Military Philosophy and Russia at War. My books Ancient Warfare in The Book of Mormon and Decisive Battles in Chinese History are now available.
Currently I teach history at American Public University and several other schools. I studied in the MPhil/PhD War Studies Program at Kings College London. My political and military analysis can be found in Opslens magazine, Strategy and Tactics, Fox News, Strategy Bridge, Washington Examiner and other places.

Tuesday, January 22, 2013

In repeated discussions of LDS positions on war there is an inevitable quotation from J. Reuben Clark.[1]But non violent proponents and radical libertarians do not know the life and times of this man, which in turn undermine his positions and any use they may have in advancing an anti war agenda.Isolated quotes from J. Reuben Clark fail to account for his inconsistent views, his pro Nazi positions, and his demotion and minority voice within church leadership.

Before I cover those three points I must point out several things. It may shock an average church member to read a critique of a former apostle.This is a valid concern based on an abundance of love and respect for those leaders.Yet I should remind readers that binding church doctrine is not found in isolated statements of church leaders.[2](And as I point out below, even contemporaries leaders disagreed with and prevented the publication of his statements.)Church doctrine is found in the standard works, and in the consistent pronunciations of the First Presidency and the Quorum the Twelve. A single statement represents a well thought out opinion and is not considered binding on church members.

Furthermore, it is disingenuous to introduce a prophet’s words to bolster a political argument, but then expect an uncritical acceptance of those words. In essence radical libertarians and anti war critics introduce a piece of evidence in a court room, and then deny a proper cross examination of it. If they are so sensitive to possible mistreatment of a prophet’s image or legacy, perhaps they shouldn’t introduce his words to bolster their political arguments and castigate brothers who disagree with them.[3]So with as much respect that I have for the prophets’ words, they are used to support arguments with which I disagree, and used in opposition to the context in which they originated. So a faithful member of the church can and should examine the historical context and logical implications of teachings often presented in isolation to support an agenda.

Tossed About With Every Wind of Politics

His shifting positions hardly represent a stable moral view of war, but rather a position that changes with the politics of the time.He started his young adult life with his family barely convincing him not to enlist in the Spanish American War.[4]This is particularly insightful as it is considered one of the most imperialistic of America’s Wars and resulted in a brutal counter insurgency campaign in the Philippines.He then worked for State Department and wrote was sounded like the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine.[5] The Monroe Doctrine was a policy that told Europeans to keep their hands off North or South America. While the Roosevelt Corollary added that America could and would be hands on in that region.This doctrine expanded America’s involvement in unofficial wars, gunboat diplomacy, and even quasi annexation of Caribbean and Central American countries until the start of WWII. At the start of WWI he enlisted in the Army Reserves and even argued that German nationals should be imprisoned.[6]

A person might argue that he was impassioned by later abuses and ennobled by the course of his life so he would eventually become a pacifist.But he said during this period that:

The older I get, the more I see, the more experience I obtain, the more I become convinced that the peace propaganda and the present peace propagandists are both equally impractical and illusory, as also inimical to the interests of the this nation. If we get into war…we shall have to put some of them in jail, and personally I should like to begin with [prominent progressive and anti imperialist, William Jennings] Bryan.[7]

Pro Nazi

In that statement, Clark essentially agreed with George Orwell, who later commented during WWII that,

In so far as it hampers the British war effort, British pacifism is on the side of the Nazis and German pacifism, if it exists, is on the side of Britain and the USSR. Since pacifists have more freedom of action in countries where traces of democracy survive, pacifism can act more effectively against democracy than for it. Objectively the pacifist is pro Nazi.

A year later he said:

Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help out that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, 'he that is not with me is against me.'[8]

Clark’s words and actions after his anti war shift exemplify this quote.In sharp contrast to his earlier statements about interning Germans, Clark had effusive praise for Hitler and the society he was creating. This is in spite of the numerous reports he had concerning Nazi death camps.[9]He even “suppressed” the anti Nazi writings of a former mission president to Czechoslovakia which contained pictures of prisoners in a German concentration camp.

He repeatedly advocated for a negotiated peace with Germany that would have left them in control of much of Europe.[10] He did so after there were yet more reports from death camps such as Auschwitz. The FBI had secret files which detailed how Nazi agents received the private encouragement of J. Reuben Clark.[11]After a fireside given by Clark one member publicly wrote that is was “the most reactionary, critical, and near seditious ever delivered in a country during a time of war.”[12]

After the war was over he condemned the Nuremburg trials while also accusing the Allies of seeking to destroy the German people. Historian D. Michael Quinn recorded that in over 600 boxes of personal papers there is not one criticism of Nazi conduct during the war.“Clarks only accusation of war crimes was against his own nation’s leaders and armed forces.”[13]

Overruled

These comments didn’t escape the notice of fellow church leaders and the rank and file members.The title of this piece reflected one opinion of Clark’s pro Nazi views and the above section also included the “near seditious” nature of Clark’s words.After the attack at Pearl Harbor President Grant disregarded Clark’s description of the war as “jungle law of beasts” and published a more cautious message.[14]The First Presidency message in April 1942 did not contain any of Clark’s positions on conscientious objectors, though a later letter seemed to be influenced by Clark. In 1945 the First Presidency against softened a message he wrote.[15]

On the ascension of President David O. McKay he was demoted to second counselor in the First Presidency. McKay also forcefully ordered him to speak in support of military service during the Korean War.[16]Many of his most strident remarks were made in unofficial capacities or remained in his private papers as he seemed out of step with many of his church colleagues, like Harold B. Lee and McKay, but also his professional colleagues, where he was the only former or current U.S. ambassador to reject creation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization; his opinions also elicited severe opposition from rank and file church members.While morality is not a popularity contest, establishing church doctrine does require the consistent proclamation of all 15 people in the Presidency and Quorum of the 12.Because of the deference for past and present leaders it is also extremely rare to be overturned in such conspicuous ways and reinforces the idea that Clark was not speaking for the Lord’s church but stating his opinion.

Conclusion

It is tempting and easy to say you are anti war.With the horrors of death and a humanistic concern for the individual welfare, not to mention the often naked use of power we see around the world, it is understandable.But many anti war advocates don’t consider the logical outcomes of their actions. Thus somebody who was anti war during WWII, inevitably became pro Nazi.

J. Reuben Clark was not consistent in his positions. He supported imperialistic endeavors through his youth and even defended them and attacked pacifists as he advanced in his career.He abruptly shifted without explanation and consistently defended Nazis and attacked any form of warfare.He was so strident that he often didn’t garner the support of other church leaders and was overruled on more than one occasion.

Using out of context quotes from J. Reuben Clark might satisfy the pacifist looking for support in his position. But it ignores the context of his time.The shifting positions, pro Nazi attitudes, and minority within church leadership undermine the value of isolated quotes. Using his quotes suggests a failure to articulate clear moral positions, and the reason why a person might shift them throughout a their life. It also suggests that the logical outcome of anti war positions will result in opposing just war against genocidal dictators. And they suggest that a person holds a minority position within the Church and is not accurately stating binding doctrine.

[4]D. Michael Quinn, “Pacifist Counselor in the First Presidency: J Reuben Clark Jr., 1933-196” in War and Peace in Our Times: Mormon Perspectives, Patrick Mason, J. David Pulsipher, Richard Bushman eds. (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2012) 141-160, 141.Unless otherwise noted, all of the page numbers for this post originate from Quinn’s essay.I was rather surprised he presented the evidence found in this post without comment but instead focused on Clark’s protection and assistance to pacifists.While the latter is good I think the former deserves more attention and consideration than it got in his piece.

Saturday, January 5, 2013

RT writes that Nephi dictating his record is historically unlikely because literacy was rare and even fewer possessed the skills to write an extended narrative. Unfortunately, the writer missed Brant Gardner's article which rebuts both points. I hope that people commenting on the historicity of The Book of Mormon would account for all of current research.

RT's piece also seems to follow a trend that ignores how the book might change perception of history. The Book of Mormon is often judged by historical knowledge, but as a rare primary source it can also inform our knowledge of history. My still forthcoming book has a chapter on battle in Mesoamerica which takes this dual approach. It shows how The Book of Mormon conforms to the current knowledge of battle by looking at the Mayan glyphs for war and the most recent scholarship on items such as ceremonial dramas, divine battle standards, and ritual desecration; but it also looks at intricate details that inform us of practices as well such as the covenants of Nephites, the use of the Title of Liberty in battle, and specific tactics before and during an engagement.